You can't enforce an illegal contract or lease. If I'm leasing something while it's legal, and it becomes illegal, either by a change in law or by my actions, the authorities are highly unlikely to grandfather me in.
There's reasons why Captain Obvious is often hailed as a superhero. (Which, come to think of it, is at least a factual statement as many I've seen on/. today.)
So, if the EU denies access to the.eu domain to people who aren't in the EU, it's a stupid bureaucratic decision and the only people who will suffer are in the EU? Should people in Myanmar be able to register.eu domains also?
From what I've read, Uber is losing money fairly fast and has a negative revenue stream from people driving for it, paying the driver more than they charge the passenger. In that case, they're betting the company on self-driving technology.
I see you're not a fan of personal responsibility, since you're defending people who made a car that can't detect a pedestrian in plain view, and a safety driver that was inattentive. Personal responsibility as a driver means I don't hit people, even if I can construct a legal case so I'm not actually charged.
If you run your own encryption, the key has to be available in memory, so it likely can be fished out of there somewhere. iPhones from the 5S onward have the Secure Enclave, which means the key isn't accessible by normal means. The security has continued to improve. Currently, the Secure Enclave generates its own key, which means Apple doesn't know what it is and can't get at it. See Apple's security guide for details.
Therefore, Apple is providing encryption in a more secure form than you can.
Money is on the line. Apple makes money primarily by selling stuff to people. Apple wants happy, ergo repeat customers. If Apple gets caught not respecting privacy, after putting out marketing material like this, lots of Apple customers are unhappy and probably not repeat.
All the public connections have to do is be dumb pipes. University administrators have to make decisions on who can speak where and when because their capabilities are limited and there's demand for them. They don't always make the best decisions, but they do have to make decisions. City connectivity doesn't. If it just sticks to that, it'll be fine.
Net neutrality advocates want ISPs to be just dumb, interchangeable pipes with a simple rate structure
Actually, that's what we want for last-mile data service. If that's available, we get actual competition among ISPs, who can offer assorted capabilities at whatever price they want. The city connectivity service doesn't have to be an ISP. It doesn't need to connect to the Internet directly.
Such practices haven't been the norm because we've had net neutrality enforced. Also, there are approximately no small broadband providers. That requires last mile service to everyone, and that's typically the cable and phone companies. If small ISPs could buy service to homes at the same price as the existing ones, there'd be more small ISPs.
Certainly, and now they're beholden to the whims of a small group of retailers. Except that it isn't a small group, it's one retailer. Can't go across the street to another publisher. Also, publishing companies were much smaller, and the potential to talk to someone and argue about a decision was much higher. (Not that it was ever high, but....)
Exactly what is Amazon doing that's a monopoly, and how are they abusing it? It's legal to outcompete all other businesses in a market sector and get dominance that way. There's things it's illegal to do based on a monopoly, and Trump wasn't accusing Amazon of any of them.
Trump's down to his base of hard-core deplorables. That's not enough to win anything, although it is enough to greatly affect Republican primaries. He's been doing the wrong thing and hurting his supporters pretty steadily, so if they're still with him some more publicity won't make any difference.
If Trump were a traditionalist, he;'d operate his own businesses in a traditional matter. He's shown no desire to help the working and middle classes. He wants to unconstitutionally loot the Treasury, cut his own taxes, and use the power of the Presidency to favor businesses he personally likes.
The USPS may have some unique advantages, but it also has unique obligations. It has to deliver mail anywhere, for rates fixed by Congress, and it can't adopt efficiency improvements without Congressional approval. The letter monopoly the USPS has is getting to be a smaller and smaller amount of the mail, and it's making more money on the parcel business, which is wide open for competition. The USPS has been innovative in those areas.
When I got my current laptop, I opened up Minesweeper, and immediately saw that I could purchase a version without ads. That was a shock. I think my Minesweeper days may be over.
Reasons being that he's so much worse environmentally than previous US Presidents, and at least the US population can exert pressure on him and Congress. I have a very tiny impact on how the US is run, and none at all on how China is run.
The US also is next to the Pacific, but we don't plan on using it to satisfy water needs in the Midwest. The Midwest gets its water from rain and snow melt in what is mostly the Mississippi watershed. If we wanted the Midwest to be wetter, we'd want more rain and snow in that watershed, not a project to import water from the Pacific. Similarly, the Chinese are talking about more rain in areas quite a bit away from the coast.
It may be that Uber cars are not as good as Waymo's, or that Uber does far more demanding tests. In either case, there's reason to allow Waymo to continue testing and stop Uber until their cars are reasonably safe to use in the tests they are running, by some combination of improving their cars or making their tests less ambitious.
I was obviously insufficiently clear about the damages. What you said was "What is more important is whether the company is willing and able to pay for damages their program causes." My point is that no damages are going to make the victims whole in the case of death, and so not killing people is more important than paying weregild (which was dropped from the legal system a long time ago). If what's important is that the company is prepared to pay $X million if its experiments kill someone, then they have a license to kill that's limited only by their cash supply. I'd rather see them not kill people if they can avoid it.
The street was apparently considered adequately safe beforehand, but that was without self-driving cars not noticing pedestrians while the safety driver plays Candy Crush or whatever. That looks a lot like criminal negligence, and we don't what that happening no matter how much money we can soak the company for.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't enforce an illegal contract or lease. If I'm leasing something while it's legal, and it becomes illegal, either by a change in law or by my actions, the authorities are highly unlikely to grandfather me in.
You might want to watch how you write things. Somebody might think you're serious.
I don't know what my company is going to do about it. We value having facilities in the EU, and the UK was very convenient for that.
There's reasons why Captain Obvious is often hailed as a superhero. (Which, come to think of it, is at least a factual statement as many I've seen on /. today.)
So, if the EU denies access to the .eu domain to people who aren't in the EU, it's a stupid bureaucratic decision and the only people who will suffer are in the EU? Should people in Myanmar be able to register .eu domains also?
From what I've read, Uber is losing money fairly fast and has a negative revenue stream from people driving for it, paying the driver more than they charge the passenger. In that case, they're betting the company on self-driving technology.
In situations like this, you should always ask yourself, "Who would Jesus kill?"
I see you're not a fan of personal responsibility, since you're defending people who made a car that can't detect a pedestrian in plain view, and a safety driver that was inattentive. Personal responsibility as a driver means I don't hit people, even if I can construct a legal case so I'm not actually charged.
I don't think you have that quite right.
If you run your own encryption, the key has to be available in memory, so it likely can be fished out of there somewhere. iPhones from the 5S onward have the Secure Enclave, which means the key isn't accessible by normal means. The security has continued to improve. Currently, the Secure Enclave generates its own key, which means Apple doesn't know what it is and can't get at it. See Apple's security guide for details.
Therefore, Apple is providing encryption in a more secure form than you can.
Money is on the line. Apple makes money primarily by selling stuff to people. Apple wants happy, ergo repeat customers. If Apple gets caught not respecting privacy, after putting out marketing material like this, lots of Apple customers are unhappy and probably not repeat.
All the public connections have to do is be dumb pipes. University administrators have to make decisions on who can speak where and when because their capabilities are limited and there's demand for them. They don't always make the best decisions, but they do have to make decisions. City connectivity doesn't. If it just sticks to that, it'll be fine.
You mean, to have the FCC reinstate Net Neutrality provisions? That's the Internet as we've known it.
Actually, that's what we want for last-mile data service. If that's available, we get actual competition among ISPs, who can offer assorted capabilities at whatever price they want. The city connectivity service doesn't have to be an ISP. It doesn't need to connect to the Internet directly.
Such practices haven't been the norm because we've had net neutrality enforced. Also, there are approximately no small broadband providers. That requires last mile service to everyone, and that's typically the cable and phone companies. If small ISPs could buy service to homes at the same price as the existing ones, there'd be more small ISPs.
Certainly, and now they're beholden to the whims of a small group of retailers. Except that it isn't a small group, it's one retailer. Can't go across the street to another publisher. Also, publishing companies were much smaller, and the potential to talk to someone and argue about a decision was much higher. (Not that it was ever high, but....)
Got any evidence behind those claims? I thought not.
He'll do the thing he thinks will help him the most. He's not great at making decisions that benefit him in the long run.
Exactly what is Amazon doing that's a monopoly, and how are they abusing it? It's legal to outcompete all other businesses in a market sector and get dominance that way. There's things it's illegal to do based on a monopoly, and Trump wasn't accusing Amazon of any of them.
Get real.
Trump's down to his base of hard-core deplorables. That's not enough to win anything, although it is enough to greatly affect Republican primaries. He's been doing the wrong thing and hurting his supporters pretty steadily, so if they're still with him some more publicity won't make any difference.
If Trump were a traditionalist, he;'d operate his own businesses in a traditional matter. He's shown no desire to help the working and middle classes. He wants to unconstitutionally loot the Treasury, cut his own taxes, and use the power of the Presidency to favor businesses he personally likes.
The USPS may have some unique advantages, but it also has unique obligations. It has to deliver mail anywhere, for rates fixed by Congress, and it can't adopt efficiency improvements without Congressional approval. The letter monopoly the USPS has is getting to be a smaller and smaller amount of the mail, and it's making more money on the parcel business, which is wide open for competition. The USPS has been innovative in those areas.
When I got my current laptop, I opened up Minesweeper, and immediately saw that I could purchase a version without ads. That was a shock. I think my Minesweeper days may be over.
Reasons being that he's so much worse environmentally than previous US Presidents, and at least the US population can exert pressure on him and Congress. I have a very tiny impact on how the US is run, and none at all on how China is run.
The US also is next to the Pacific, but we don't plan on using it to satisfy water needs in the Midwest. The Midwest gets its water from rain and snow melt in what is mostly the Mississippi watershed. If we wanted the Midwest to be wetter, we'd want more rain and snow in that watershed, not a project to import water from the Pacific. Similarly, the Chinese are talking about more rain in areas quite a bit away from the coast.
It may be that Uber cars are not as good as Waymo's, or that Uber does far more demanding tests. In either case, there's reason to allow Waymo to continue testing and stop Uber until their cars are reasonably safe to use in the tests they are running, by some combination of improving their cars or making their tests less ambitious.
I was obviously insufficiently clear about the damages. What you said was "What is more important is whether the company is willing and able to pay for damages their program causes." My point is that no damages are going to make the victims whole in the case of death, and so not killing people is more important than paying weregild (which was dropped from the legal system a long time ago). If what's important is that the company is prepared to pay $X million if its experiments kill someone, then they have a license to kill that's limited only by their cash supply. I'd rather see them not kill people if they can avoid it.
The street was apparently considered adequately safe beforehand, but that was without self-driving cars not noticing pedestrians while the safety driver plays Candy Crush or whatever. That looks a lot like criminal negligence, and we don't what that happening no matter how much money we can soak the company for.
So, you claim I don't care about democracy or human rights based on what I said? That's going to be a hard claim to defend.